Urialanis:God I wish I hadn't wasted my time reading that, thank you for some irrelevant unproven information.

They don't make you read their articles, you know. People spend a lot of time writing for them. If you don't like them, there is no need to insult their work. Just don't read it.

I took the time to read it and I found it disappointing am I not allowed to voice my opinion? I was under the apparently false opinion that this is a 'forum' generally used for discussing/expressing opinions or knowledge, though looking at your replies I'm not surprised you felt I had no right to express my opinion.

Wow... look at all the tension and bruised egotism. Did everybody have a bad weekend? There's no reason we can't have dissenting opinions and still be cordial and respectful.

This isn't 4-chan for God's sake.

As far as the actual topic, I suggest everybody review Extra Credits (yes, all of them). Pretty much anything I would have said related to this topic (and lots of other topics, etc.) is in there; far better researched than my opinions.

targren:Why would I say otherwise? I'm the first one who SAID it was the portrayal of violence (which is a synonym for "depiction"). But yet again, "portrayal"(or "depiction") is NOT "promotion."

It is the promotion of violence. If a game gives you no alternative to committing a violent act, and then rewards you for doing so, it has promoted the use of violence.

Promoting is not the same as 'encouraging you to commit [insert act here] in the real world'.

You are analyzing the phrase "promoting violence" differently than every one else in this thread. And I think I can explain why people are arguing about it with you.

In articles such as there say that a game "promotes violence" they are stating that because the human player is seeing the stuff happen in the game, they are being encouraged to perform violent actions in real life. This statement is false (in my opinion), because the game does not encourage the human player to actually perform any things the game character does.

Ok, so here is where your argument differs, and why people are getting mad at you...What you are saying by the game "promotes violence" is that that the game character is encouraged to perform murder and such activities. You said "If a game gives you no alternative to committing a violent act, and then rewards you for doing so, it has promoted the use of violence."The game doesn't reward the human player for performing these actions in any real way, it rewards the game character. There are no real monsters shooting at the human player, and the player does not get a better score in life for shooting enemies. The human player is just playing a game. the game character is given no alternate solution. There is no game option for the character to sign a peace treaty. However, the human player can always stop playing, or play the game without shooting, or whatever they want to do.

So the difference lies in who the target for this "promoting violence" is in the context of your argument.In your statement you are actually saying that the game promotes violence to the game character. Which is different than what others are saying.And here is why everyone got really mad at you, because you specified the wrong target in your original post when you said "Video games can and do promote violence in young people." We assume that when you say young people you mean the human player, and in that case your argument is wrong (as hopefully I have explained clearly enough).

Basically, the way it should be looked at is this:The game character is promoted to use violenceThe human player is simply exposed to violent images.

But you see, the game does promote it and reward violence from the player, by progressing and unlocking more of the game. That is your reward.

It doesn't promote the use of real-world violence - that would just be silly - like you clearly said. But it does promote the use of violence in the game. If someone says games don't do this at all, they must have never played many of today's mainstream, big budget releases.

Maybe I see the reward for playing games differently? But to me, progressing though and seeing more of the game is the reward, and if a game gives you this after you kill an enemy, it has promoted the use of violence.

*shrug* Maybe people just have a bad taste in their mouth from all the 'video games cause real world violence' nonsense.

But you see, the game does promote it and reward violence from the player, by progressing and unlocking more of the game. That is your reward.

It doesn't promote the use of real-world violence - that would just be silly - like you clearly said. But it does promote the use of violence in the game. If someone says games don't do this at all, they must have never played many of today's mainstream, big budget releases.

Maybe I see the reward for playing games differently? But to me, progressing though and seeing more of the game is the reward, and if a game gives you this after you kill an enemy, it has promoted the use of violence.

*shrug* Maybe people just have a bad taste in their mouth from all the 'video games cause real world violence' nonsense.

And that is where people were getting mad at you, because you are talking about violence contained in the game world. And everyone else is talking about violence in the real world. But everyone was too busy trying to show how they were right and the other was wrong to see that you weren't arguing about the same thing.

All you are saying is that violent games contain violence. That is not what this article was talking about, or what other users were discussing.

But I am also saying video games can and often do promote and reward violent acts. People seem to overlook this as they are desperate to be rid of the 'video games cause real violence' tripe. I think this is the source of a lot of friction between certain groups and gamers; some say video games promote violence and that allowing their child to engage in these acts and be rewarded for them, is bad in and of itself. Gamers seem to universally deny all violence being promoted, as if games punished the player for using it.

But I am also saying video games can and often do promote and reward violent acts. People seem to overlook this as they are desperate to be rid of the 'video games cause real violence' tripe. I think this is the source of a lot of friction between certain groups and gamers; some say video games promote violence and that allowing their child to engage in these acts and be rewarded for them, is bad in and of itself. Gamers seem to universally deny all violence being promoted, as if games punished the player for using it.

But you are missing the point I made before. The game demands acts of violence from the game character, not the human player. Here, I thought I have a decent example of my point.

Imagine we take the game Gears Of War, and we made a graphics mod for it. What this mod does is remove every character sprite, and gun image from the game. No blood, no bullets, ect...

This mod replaces all of these images with basic rectangle shapes. The aim of the game is to line up the cursor (cross hairs) over the different rectangles, and when you click on them, the rectangle is deleted and you get a point.

The controls and gameplay for this is exactly the same as gears of war, there is just no sound or gory graphics. This game is in basically no way violent. it does not DEPICT violence to the human player, or PROMOTE violent to the game character (my little green rectangle guy)

But what is the game asking of the human player? The exact same input commands. The user is doing exactly the same things to do exactly the stuff in the game. it just looks and sounds different.

So what does changing graphics in a game do? does it ask for more or less of a human player? Does it make you do anything different? No, it is still just an exchange of input commands into a program, and outputting data to the screen.

So what does changing the graphics of a game do? It simply exposes the human player to images of violence. This is not promoting violence (in any way) to a human player. It is simple displaying images to the person.

No offense, but the hours a week girls play Bejeweled or Diner Dash doesn't mean anything to me. Compare the number of core gamer girls to core gamer guys and you would indeed see the huge rift that exists. Same as every other medium, I don't see why you have to pretend that girls care about the same things guys do anyway.

I also kind of agree with PK; most fps games are just murder simulators to me. I don't think video games make kids shoot each other, since even the shootings-over-madden could happen over any competitive thing anyway, but don't act like its never carried over into irl for you.

The game itself does not encourage violence. The developers don't want you to go and kill people. It can influence people with mental problems to do violent acts but for the most part violence in video-games is harmless.

The player is causing the violence - and is encouraged to do so. The player is the one pressing the button, after all. If the player did nothing at all, the video game character wouldn't move, shoot, talk, anything. It is the human behind the wheel that sets in motion the action.

The player is causing the violence - and is encouraged to do so. The player is the one pressing the button, after all. If the player did nothing at all, the video game character wouldn't move, shoot, talk, anything. It is the human behind the wheel that sets in motion the action.

So nearly all gamers should be tried for murder because of a magical power bestowed upon them by game developers. Every computer and console is now a "Death Note".

The player is causing the violence - and is encouraged to do so. The player is the one pressing the button, after all. If the player did nothing at all, the video game character wouldn't move, shoot, talk, anything. It is the human behind the wheel that sets in motion the action.

So nearly all gamers should be tried for murder because of a magical power bestowed upon them by game developers. Every computer and console is now a "Death Note".

You clearly have no grasp of the discussion taking place. Your sarcasm only makes you look silly.

The player is causing the violence - and is encouraged to do so. The player is the one pressing the button, after all. If the player did nothing at all, the video game character wouldn't move, shoot, talk, anything. It is the human behind the wheel that sets in motion the action.

This is beside the point that we were discussing.I agree with your statement, that violence exists within the game. And that the video game "promotes violence" in the game world. I understand that point which you are making. The player is pushing events in the game world which will display violence.

But, that is not the point that the original article is trying to make (or the point that you and the other escapists were arguing about earlier). Their argument was that the violence get's promoted outside of the game world. I was just trying to show the difference between the arguments you were all bringing up.

It's similar to a parent giving their child a coloring book. They are encouraging (or "promoting", to use the key phrase of the discussion) their child to color inside the context of a coloring book. This doesn't mean that they are encouraging their child to go out and spray graffiti onto buildings.

Violent video games promote violence INSIDE the game world (that is the argument you were making, of which I agree).Violent video games do not promote violence OUTSIDE of the game world (this is the argument that everyone else is talking about).

Pirate kitty has already indicated that s/he knows that on screen violent acts and real life violent acts are different and that two are unconnected (so far as we can tell).

So at this point PK is either being ultra-pedantic, trolling or as s/he says autistic but either way its a waste of time trying to argue with her point because she doesnt actually have one, merely a disturbing fixation on some unclear grammar/expression in the original article.

Games contain violence, they allow gamers to partake/influence/cause violence, players tend to be rewarded for the violence, therefor games promote (show in a positive light within the context of whats happening in game) violence (again within the confines of the game/player interaction). TRUE

Games contain violence, they allow gamers to partake/influence/cause violence, players tend to be rewarded for the violence, therefor games promote(cause/incite/influence) violence (outwith the game and in the real world against real flesh and blood people). FALSE (eh, unproven so far as we know)

I wish there was some way to take virtual post-its next to other posters.

A very simple piece of information that everyone seems to be missing in the "video games are/aren't art" argument is that it doesn't have to be good art to be art. A scribbling of a stick figure on a piece of lined paper is art. whether or not you enjoy that art is completely a separate argument. So just because you don't feel that video games aren't "up to par" with other forms of media doesn't mean that it isn't art.

On to another note, specifically the "video games cause/promote violence" argument. First of all, just because there are obviously violent video games, like Gears of War, but you also have to remember that Super Mario is violent, what with it's constant crushing of your enemies beneath your feet and lighting them on fire. Yet no one blames that game for causing violence in people, and no one would, because so many people have played Super Mario Brothers and of all the people who have played it probably 1/2,000,000 actually goes on to commit a violent act. And this statistic is most likely exactly the same for games such as Gears of War also (it would be impossible to actually find that statistic, or at least incredibly complex due to the varying natures of why people commit violent acts). And unless a majority of people who play the game commit violent acts then it cannot be said to promote violence.

pokepuke:So nearly all gamers should be tried for murder because of a magical power bestowed upon them by game developers. Every computer and console is now a "Death Note".

You clearly have no grasp of the discussion taking place. Your sarcasm only makes you look silly.

Actually it illustrates the rift between your side and everyone else. You not understanding that point is what is silly. Your words simply don't make much of any sense to anyone but yourself, because you're not using them correctly.

shadowsoul222:A very simple piece of information that everyone seems to be missing in the "video games are/aren't art" argument is that it doesn't have to be good art to be art. A scribbling of a stick figure on a piece of lined paper is art. whether or not you enjoy that art is completely a separate argument. So just because you don't feel that video games aren't "up to par" with other forms of media doesn't mean that it isn't art.

C J Davies:Or maybe not. Skeptics claim that the broadband capabilities needed for OnLive to work properly are an unrealistic dream.

20Mbit/s (downstream) connections are common in the Netherlands, and I'm pretty sure we're not alone. We certainly wouldn't be for long.

C J Davies:Oh, and there's one advantage to having a nice physical-format stack of games next to a nice physical-format console: you won't lose absolutely everything when a centralized server goes kaput. Which is handy.

The whole point of cloud computing is the lack of a centralized server. Often data is stored in multiple locations.

Pirate Kitty:Also: why is Braid so touted as a shiny example of video game art? It's a platformer with a well-worn plot. What is exactly more or less artistic about Braid than, say, Doom 1?

Braid was an overhyped, overpriced piece of shit. It took Mario and made it into a flash game, added a rewind feature and topped it off with a hipsters dream journal for a story. It was artistic only in the sense that we were told it was artistic, it was good only because we were told it was good. If Braid is a shining example of games as art, I'll go back to Q*bert, thanks.

I dislike the argument that video games or film is art. In my opinion there are only examples of these things being art. Porn films are a type of film so does that mean porn is art because film is art, I don't think that. If film is art than everything from Citizen Kane to Michael Bay films to porn is art because they are film. there are may examples of art in video games such as the aforementioned Shadow of the Colossus.

KuwaSanjuro:I dislike the argument that video games or film is art. In my opinion there are only examples of these things being art. Porn films are a type of film so does that mean porn is art because film is art, I don't think that. If film is art than everything from Citizen Kane to Michael Bay films to porn is art because they are film. there are may examples of art in video games such as the aforementioned Shadow of the Colossus.

So something is not art because some (or many) items of that media format are not art?

Im not really sure what you are trying to say because I would say that using that definition there is no art.

KuwaSanjuro:I dislike the argument that video games or film is art. In my opinion there are only examples of these things being art. Porn films are a type of film so does that mean porn is art because film is art, I don't think that. If film is art than everything from Citizen Kane to Michael Bay films to porn is art because they are film. there are may examples of art in video games such as the aforementioned Shadow of the Colossus.

So something is not art because some (or many) items of that media format are not art?

Im not really sure what you are trying to say because I would say that using that definition there is no art.

Yeah that's sort of my point I don't really think an entire medium can be called art but examples of this medium can be seen as art. I also think a lot of it has to do with your own personal preference an example I guess is the fermented shark by Damian Hurst, I don't think that is art but loads of people do.

KuwaSanjuro:I dislike the argument that video games or film is art. In my opinion there are only examples of these things being art. Porn films are a type of film so does that mean porn is art because film is art, I don't think that. If film is art than everything from Citizen Kane to Michael Bay films to porn is art because they are film. there are may examples of art in video games such as the aforementioned Shadow of the Colossus.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Not every drawing, sculpture, song, poem, movie, play, or video game is art.

Also you ever notice how no one mentions sitcoms as art? Why is that? Is it because sitcoms don't have a bill attacking their very existence or is it because sitcoms are in general dumb. I'm leaning towards the bill one. I mean lets think about it, movie stars have been in sitcoms. Writers have been known to do both sitcoms and movies. Danny Elfman makes music for both, yet movies and film are art, while sitcoms are sitcoms. And sitcoms aren't all dumb, there have been some very critically acclaimed sitcoms. I mean you can't go on the internet without hearing how genius Arrest Development was and I challenge you to find a more sentimental story about a boy and his dog than Futurama's Jurassic Bark.

Hell sitcoms have all the pros that video games to for potentially being art, and none of that nudity or mindless violence.